Speaking of logistics, here's a very crude graphic representation (on a crude alpha map) of the fact that the system now tracks rail usage down tracks. In this case various shading shows different levels of use. As use goes up, less freight moves over it and units moving over the track use more MPs. You'll notice Naples is a depot type 3 (port source of supply for other ports). You create forward depots in the game. Fresh from reading the US Army logistical study of the France 44 campaign, Gary threw himself into doing the logistics game he's always wanted to do (a scary thing from the guy that brought supply points into World at War, a game some refer to as Axis & Allies on steroids). Over 30 years of working with Gary and he constantly impresses me with what he comes up with. And Pavel is doing an equally great job on the new air game, so I for one am looking forward to seeing this game come together.

I agree with you Iron Duke. I had such promise for this series,but the Devs seem immune to any feedback from their customers. If this was still the 1970's,i guess i could accept that,but in the year 2012, to not acknowledge a very vocal part of their fanbase, that says the axis are being handled incorrectly is astonishing. I know there is a group of players (Aurelian and his ilk) who would like to stifle this series,but to do so would be a huge error on matrix's part in my opinion.

I am now appealing to matrix rather than 2by3 as they seem impervious to any input. I think you are missing a HUGE market by not giving people who like to play the axis a better gaming experiance.I for one (and from PM's i recieved i'm not the only one) will not continue to support this series unless a more fair and enjoyable gaming experiance for the axis players is implemented.

To new axis player's be forwarned you will likely be dissapointed!!

Now let the attacks from Aurelian and his crowd commence!

EDIT:Joel this is very impressive.But what i am looking for is more flexability to increase my gaming expeiance.Why is the side that already has all the advantages given all the fun things to do,unlike WitP.

ORIGINAL: Smirfy From the scale chosen the actual “game” will be reliant on working mechanics for logistics, comand and control and politics to carry it. (in those three WITE fell on its face which incidently was a surprise given Garys civil war game). From the sceenshot there is nothing to suggest WITW will be any different.

Each to his own I suppose

As a contrary opinion, 1) WitE logistics are comparable to similar games but certainly need improvement even for WitE, 2) C&C is by far the best model I have seen (but can still be improved of course), and 3) I don't see where politics is even applicable to WitE (although inter-Allied friction will certainly be a factor in WitW).

quote:

Each to his own I suppose

As a contrary opinion, 1) WitE logistics are comparable to similar games but certainly need improvement even for WitE, 2) C&C is by far the best model I have seen (but can still be improved of course), and 3) I don't see where politics is even applicable to WitE (although inter-Allied friction will certainly be a factor in WitW).

I'm sorry but there arnt that many turn based operational hex based games on the market to compare WitE with so claiming it is comparable or the best is laughable to start of with. Atomic's operational wargames had a better logistics model and they are 10+ years old. C+C as a mechanic is pretty poor and does not reflect Eastern Front warfare in the slightest. If you cant see how politics effected the war in the East I think you should get your nose out of technical manuals and read a history of the conflict and then compare it to zero political gravity WitE. The map used is too big for a strategic wargame and too small for an operational wargame so without those three facets I mention the game is a counter shove and a database nothing more. Numerous posts have pointed out that the West will be cramped to say the least.

My 2cents was releasing Barbarossa to Berlin and trying to get it to work as the starting point of a "Europa" series was optimistic. It would have been better to start with Poland or the Western Desert to get the scale and mechanics right. Failing that it would have been more sensible to release if the first module had to be an Eastern front wargame it should have only dealt with the events up to Spring 42. When you narrow the remit you have more chance of getting things right. Now the crowbar is going to be used to lever WiTW into a failed scale. That is beyond debate. So like I said it better have a great political, logistics and C+C model because anyone can see it wont work.

I admire the scale of the ambition but am hoping this does not come out for many years.

WiTE has already consumed almost all of my gaming time for 16 months now and I want to play Panzerkorps, Total War 2 Shogun, Guild Wars 2 etc etc so please give me a chance to do something other than this game.

_____________________________

web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?

It would be great if tracking rail capacity would be backported to WitE, I would even buy it in a paid expansion pack. The current supply model is unrealistic just because of this single issue - unlimited capacity of one rail line to supply any number of units. Is it possible for this feature to make into WitE?

It would be great if tracking rail capacity would be backported to WitE, I would even buy it in a paid expansion pack. The current supply model is unrealistic just because of this single issue - unlimited capacity of one rail line to supply any number of units. Is it possible for this feature to make into WitE?

I'd suggest this should be the only reason to actually create the supply model. It looks the best approximation I have ever seen, 2by3 should be applauded for trying to create something like this. However, Allied bombing during the transportation plan and armed recce interdiction after the landings essentially isolated the Normandy battlefield from the rest of the world in the summer of 1944. A supply model this detailed is beside the point at this particular point in time since the there was never any danger of the train lines in northern France getting overloaded.

German forces lived off a logistical shoestring and the capacity of the rail network was the least of their quartermaster's worries. They simply couldn't move large formations by train safely and usually had to go via long time consuming routes if they did try it. The Allied bomber offensive destroyed marshalling yards, miles of track, lots of bridges and it was all the German logistics could do to keep the troops supplied with basic food requirements and ammunition.

It will likewise be limited in the 40-42 game since the desert is...well...the desert. It was possession of a port and a truck fleet that mattered.

Speaking of logistics, here's a very crude graphic representation (on a crude alpha map) of the fact that the system now tracks rail usage down tracks. In this case various shading shows different levels of use. As use goes up, less freight moves over it and units moving over the track use more MPs. You'll notice Naples is a depot type 3 (port source of supply for other ports). You create forward depots in the game. Fresh from reading the US Army logistical study of the France 44 campaign, Gary threw himself into doing the logistics game he's always wanted to do (a scary thing from the guy that brought supply points into World at War, a game some refer to as Axis & Allies on steroids). Over 30 years of working with Gary and he constantly impresses me with what he comes up with. And Pavel is doing an equally great job on the new air game, so I for one am looking forward to seeing this game come together.

This is interesting and very realistic. I was reading some (translations of) papers by German generals recently of their war in Russia, and what strcuk me was the mention of several of them of these depots and the adverse effects that their distance to the front had, especially during the Battle for Moscow and how concerned they were of these falling in Russian hands or being somehow cut off from them. Like the previous poster I would love to have that somehow reworked back in WitE.

Incidentally it would stop both sides from unleashing the constant offensives that is now possible and would actually make those air transport groups even more important in the game....

I agree with you Iron Duke. I had such promise for this series,but the Devs seem immune to any feedback from their customers. If this was still the 1970's,i guess i could accept that,but in the year 2012, to not acknowledge a very vocal part of their fanbase, that says the axis are being handled incorrectly is astonishing. I know there is a group of players (Aurelian and his ilk) who would like to stifle this series,but to do so would be a huge error on matrix's part in my opinion.

Wild, Thanks for the support. However, to clarify, It's not that I think the AXIS are being handled incorrectly, I just think the game is being handled incorrectly and as the side with most to do, it impacts the AXIS side more than the Allied. My matches are always mirrored so I have no problem with either side in a general sense.

To summarise:

Firstly, there are not three games here and it's hard to see the justification for charging three times. I'm intrigued to know what happens in the final game if the German assault on France fails? Does the game arbitrarily end in 1942, or does it go on until 1945? If 1942, I sense there will be a few concerned voices, unhappy at having their grand campaigns ended early. If it goes on to 1945, why am I paying twice for the same time frame and map?

Indeed, add up the total number of units in the three games, and I strongly suspect there won't be as many combined as there are in WitE. Given the relative levels of action, casualties and committment, I seem to be getting 70% of the war in one title, with the other 30% being covered by three additional titles.

Secondly, scales. WitE is an operational wargame. WitW 43-45 won't be at these scales...period. The screenshots we see encompass all the land combat for the first 50 turns of the 43 GC. At this scale, land warfare is essentially a slugfest, as I suspect the first Beta AARs (if released) will demonstrate. If you are playing at a scale that allows few hexes, then manouvre is impossible and everything becomes frontal.

Thirdly, add ons. the logistics model looks superlative. However, a naval model is largely beside the point for much of the WitW and a more detailed aerial model is surely no reason to split the fighting into three games.

Fourthly, what you said...

quote:

EDIT:Joel this is very impressive.But what i am looking for is more flexability to increase my gaming expeiance.Why is the side that already has all the advantages given all the fun things to do,unlike WitP.

If a German player retains a hope of winning ouright in WitE in 1943/44, it is because they did very well in 1941/42. In WitW 43-45, you're starting from an historical starting position, against a numerically stronger opponent, and the situation simply precludes achieving much. The new Naval model is useless to the AXIS in this game, the new air model will allow for more realistic shuffling, but will still remain shuffling deckchairs on the titanic. the new logistics model will no doubt be historically realistic, and will deliver precisely calculated small amounts of supply to the AXIS because of the Allied air supremacy.

I doubt there is anything the AXIS can do about anything at these scales because they preclude meaningfull manouvre.

War in the West should have been one title with 5 GCs. There, I've said it...

quote:

I had such promise for this series,but the Devs seem immune to any feedback from their customers.

I have been a member here for 10 years. I have never been banned or even warned for my behaviour, not even in the old AOW. I have never criticised a game publicly, and never criticised a developer. I have contributed official scenarios to three titles (although I wasn't credited in them all and not all have been published) and additionally done some testing.

I'm not a troll, I'm well read and I don't embark on a thread like this lightly. I've added reasoning and illustrative examples to all my points so I can be comprehensively rebutted by anyone whose analysis differs.

So far, I've been told We're going with 10 miles hexes (but no reasoning why), it'll feel different, and its not really an operational wargame. For the first time in my life here, I'm beginning to feel like we're paying the price for being a captive audience in a niche market. The major decisions have been made in private, I like or I lump (my betters are effectively telling me) because there aren't too many other places to go.

I suspect I'm fast reaching the point when the growing realisation I am on DEV ignore will outweigh my desire to contribute constructively (or be a tiresome pain in the ass depending on your POV). If I didn't need the WitE forum to help me through a game, I'd take a ban to stick up a "what scale should WitW be" poll to test the community waters.

To do the early war years, and the war in the Med, you have to have a flushed out naval game, and a flushed out air game (how else would you do the Battle of Britain, Sea Lion, Norway, North Africa, Battle of the Atlantic). Now in 1943-45, the naval game is not as important, but the issues of air control over water are important (why didn't the Allies invade in Northern Italy in the summer of 43?). War in the East is a monster operational game covering the largest land war in history. But War in the East does not really do justice to naval issues or many air issues because it was not critical to the land war and could be simplified. In the West, to do them justice like we think War in the East does justice to the land issues, we need more detailed systems (not at the WitP level, but more satisfying for the serious gamer). Logistics are critical in all areas, and we've learned a lot with our WitE experience, just like our Uncommon Valor game taught us some things we needed to learn before we did WitP. We think we can do better in WitW, and that will be necessary and helpful for all of WiE (including WitE 2.0). We could try to do all of WitW 1940-45, in which case we'd say, we'll see you in 3-6 years if we haven't been forced to sell our houses and get a day job first. Some have argued we took on too much in doing WitE 41-45 all at once, but we made the decision to do it all at one time. With WitW, we see a clean break between the later years when the naval issues were simpler, and the earlier years where we need to create a new naval game. Remember, there will be scenarios in both 43 and 44 where the Allies will have an opportunity to choose different invasion sites and build up to the invasion. To me this is still an operational game, and as you can see in the screenshot there are lots of hexes (please don't critique the map as it's an alpha map which will ultimately be painted and will go through several more rounds of data adjustments - we already have a list of changes to be made). It's not WitE, and there will be times when the Allies are bottled up in small parts of the map, but it's still an operational game (divisions, not corps or army units). The new air game will allow for the simulation of the strategic bombing campaign, and the east front holding box will add the dimension of having some control over east vs west front strategic choices. We think the new air game and the invasion possibilities will make for an interesting game that is within our capabilities to do in a reasonable time frame (not a bridge too far). After this, Gary will complete a naval game system that will work with WIE in mind (and already having major pieces of the naval air game done), and we'll be able to do the earlier years in WitW. As we've said before, we expect at some point to work on a WitE 2.0 on this WiE map, using all of the more detailed systems that we will then have in place. Then, we can try to fill in the gaps and construct a WiE. In order to do a WiE game, it needs to all be at the same scale, and we selected this scale a long time ago, but doing a War in Europe game all at once just isn't possible, and isn't the best way to refine all of the systems we'll need to have working. Just a reminder, we aren't EA working on the next Madden Football, with tremendous resources to bring to bear for a market of millions of consumers.

As for retro-fitting rules from WitW to WitE, a few small items may come back into WitE, but it's unlikely that the bigger items will come to WitE. The impact on the game would be so great that the development time needed requires us to do it as a new game. And that's why we talk about WitE 2.0 someday using the WiE map as the best way to get the benefit of what we have learned and will continue to learn while working on WitW. That's quite a ways off though, and we think WitE is a great game that can be enjoyed as it is for many years.

Thank you for the map and explanations. The map clearly demonstrate that the scale choosen for WITW will not work. How can you convince players to play with Normandy scenario where inside 5 hexes there will be 30 or 40 divisions stacked during 9 or 10 turns ? You will not attrack interest if during these 10 turns there is nothing to do except strategic bombing and handle logistic. On the West front in 1944 a division was covering a line of 5 km maximum (3 miles) With a scale of 10 miles the simulation will be at the corps's level, not division level.

Actually the frontage would be up to 8 hexes with only about 20-25 divisions on the front line. The other 5-10 (or more) can be a hex back and potentially in reserve mode where they can participate in attack and defense. Ok, I get it, some of you would like to see a different scale, but that is not going to change, so for those I can only say feel free to not buy the game when it's released.

ORIGINAL: IronDuke Well, as a serial offender when it comes to holding invalid concerns , my first reaction to this was that given that the individual units will (presumably) be modelled down to individual squads, tanks and artillery pieces, and the screenshot above saw the deployment of some Regimental sized units, how can the game avoid exploring these battles at the operational level?

To be clear, I didn't say your concerns were invalid, I said they would be _more_ valid if the focus of the game were on certain operations and exploring land combat within those operations. There are games that cover these areas at a lower ground and time scale and allow you to explore every historical operation that happened before Cobra. That may be your main focus, but it is not the focus of this game, any more than replaying Kursk in detail was the focus of War in the East.

quote:

My second reaction was that are we now saying that the game is not intended to be a detailed operational simulation of the land fighting in the western theatre? Is that how we should interpret the fact the game is not "focused on exploring some of these battles on a more operational level".

What I wrote above may help clarify this. Joel's responses will probably explain it better. While you have divisions that can be broken down to regiments on the map, just as you did with WITE, as a player you are thinking much more like Roosevelt, Churchill and Eisenhower than like Patton or Montgomery. Your focus will rarely be on a small section of the front, but rather on the whole and on the combination of land and air and amphibious operations rather than just land combat.

Taking the Kursk analogy again, Prokhorovka in War in the East consists of a battle for a single hex. If you are interested in that particular battle, it's not really the best way to get into the details of it, despite the fact that the historical units with their historical and detailed TO&Es and Leaders are there. Despite that, playing out the weeks of 1943 during and after Kursk is a great experience that gives you a great sense of just how much of a blunder Kursk was and how it played into the Soviet position as well as the challenges that faced the Wehrmacht afterwards with the Soviets going over to the strategic offensive. That's what I'm getting at. Now if you add in a much more detailed and realistic air war as part of this and include amphibious operations and a coastline that covers Western Europe, the options get quite interesting and even though the game is not a game just about Normandy, you will get a good sense of how important Normandy (or the other landings) were and when and where you could or should land, what impact each landing has on the overall strategy for the Western Front, etc. It will be a heck of a good game and one that lets you see the big picture while keeping many of the interesting and historical details, just like War in the East.

quote:

With respect, whilst a new air model and naval model will be nice, it was boots on the ground and operational art that liberated France and Italy. A naval model for anything bar a few months in the mediterranearn version of the game, and 2-3 turns in the 1940 game, will be largely pointless given the Kriegsmarine lacked the fuel, tonnage or numbers to trouble the RN, particularly in the period 43-45 covered by this first title.

I think air and naval power had quite a lot to do with the Allies' successful landing in Normandy and air power had a large role to play in how the land combat proceeded after the landings.

quote:

Likewise in the air, this first game is set in a period of Allied Air supremacy. Whatever the Allied player chooses to bomb in the air portion of the game, waves of P-51s and P-47s will attrit the Luftwaffe to nothing by turn 50 of the 1943 campaign, whatever the AXIS player attempts to do (unless he puts everything into national reserve).

I think that given the start in 1943, the Axis player will still have options that can cause the Allies trouble, especially given that the outcome is not predetermined and player skill and strategies can vary. Let's assume that your prediction about the Axis being without airpower in 50 turns is correct, which I'm not sure it is if the Axis player plays well. That would still be a year in which the Axis has a lot of decisions to make and could seriously affect the Allied player's options as to where and when to land and how much to risk.

quote:

Which essentially brings us to the one section of the game where the Allies didn't have it all their own way, being unable to prevent a well organised fighting withdrawl from sicily, having to crawl a bloody crawl up Italy, and having to slug it out in the Bocage for three months before gaining space to manouvre.

Arguably, the only part of the WitW which gives the Germans any options (although these are all still slim) is the ground fighting, and it is precisely this part which is to be played out at a scale that will largely remove meaningful manouvre and decision making.

Please see my responses above. I feel that you are not seeing the forest for the trees here and are talking yourself into minimizing the gameplay that will very much be there while focusing on your concerns.

In your next post you also express frustration that we are not listening. In fact, you've had several responses now from key people involved in the project. We are listening, even though we do not share the degree of your concern, largely because we know that this can and will work as a great game from past experience. The other point to make here is that creating the map for War in the West (and War in Europe) has been a nine month full-time project on its own so far, with much more work still to be done before it's ready for the release (probably another nine months to finish it). We do not agree that the map scale needs to change, but I want to also give you a sense of how much work it takes to even begin one of these games.

The eventual goal is to have these all fit together as a War in Europe. That's worth keeping in mind as well. A War in Europe at this scale will be an incredible game for any wargamer and we aim to keep it playable.

As Joel also pointed out to your later reply, the idea that we could do the entire West, 1940-1945 in one project is not realistic. It would take five or six years to do that and the game would likely never release as Joel and Gary would not be able to support themselves long before the release date. The release plan allows us to explore some logical sections of the war in ways that make the additional features and the amount of work required in each area realistic for our development costs and time. I wish we could do it all and do it four times faster, but we cannot and this market will not support a larger development team.

quote:

Finally, I'd (with the very greatest of respect and a gentle tone) point out that the man who gave us the cinematic magnificence that is Star Wars, also gave the world Howard the Duck. Past performance is not a guarantee of future....etc etc etc.

Using George Lucas on us is a bit of a low blow...

quote:

Well, firstly, the game is surely fundamentally broken if the Germans can beat the western Allies from an historical starting position in either 43 or 44. If this is a turn of phrase (one to note down for the publicity blurb, it was a nice soundbite ), and what you mean is "lose less bad" a la the victory models for WITP and WitE, then I would continue to argue that it is absolutely essential that the ground combat is modelled meaningfully because only here can the Germans affect the outcome.

I was really speaking about this from the Allied perspective. The German player will have his hands full from the start trying to figure out a strategic defense without enough resources and playing bluff/counter-bluff with the Allied player until the first landing in Western Europe. As the Axis, you may be able to eliminate a landing if the Allied player gives you the opportunity, but you are fighting a strategic defense and deciding how best to achieve a victory within the game's terms. As with War in the East, this will be a very realistic game, not a fantasy game for either side, but within historical realism it will give you many options.

The argument about a numbers game that the Germans can't win applies equally to War in the East, yet players there enjoy playing in 1943 and 1944 as well. It's a great defensive challenge for the Axis. The Germans did lose this war and they will face the forces that liberated Europe, but how the war unfolds and whether they can achieve a performance better than their historical counterparts is the real question for their side. Again, since you are in the role of supreme commander, the question comes down more to if you didn't have Hitler and Himmler but instead had Kesselring and Model in charge of everything, would it have been different for the Allies?

I suspect it is rapidly approaching the time to wrap this up since your subsequent (fairly unusual in this sort of setting) put up or shut up post makes it clear the usefulness of my feedback has been determined. Further effort on my part is unlikely to do us nor the dead horse any favours.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

To do the early war years, and the war in the Med, you have to have a flushed out naval game, and a flushed out air game (how else would you do the Battle of Britain, Sea Lion, Norway, North Africa, Battle of the Atlantic).

If Sea Lion is possible with historical set up, then the game is broke...... I really don't see you need to do the battle of the Atlantic in any detail at all, and everything bar Norway was unnopposed from the naval perspective. Norway was a sneak attack and the Germans lost 10 destroyers in short order at Narvik once the RN turned up.

The law of diminishing returns might suggest that an exiting new naval model doesn't really need to be too complicated given the relative strength of the KM and the RN. We're surely not going to simulate large unit sorties, and the KM was spent after Norway having suffered less than 15 ships lost if memory serves.

Most German Cruisers and above were lost in harbour as were many Italian units. There is an argument, to be fair to your POV, that the period 40-42 had some combat between Cunningham and the Italians, but lack of fuel and the combined Allied fleets saw them stay home after that and it wasn't really on the scale of the Solomons.

Or, put another way, the best wargame I've ever played on the Pacific War correctly realised that land combat was largely incidental to the operational campaign, and wasted little time on it, concentrating instead on the Naval and Air models.

It was a good policy because it focused the game and the available development resources on what really mattered. What would a similiar approach here in the west suggest should be the priority?

That would be the humblest essence of my point. A detailed naval model isn't going to give the Germans the ability to prevent Dynamo, prevent Overlord or Dragoon or attempt Sealion, it isn't going to give the French the ability to stop the Germans at sedan all other things being equal, and it won't help the Germans defeat any of the major landings because they lacked the naval resources (good naval model or not) to challenge Allied might.

To stand a better chance, thus enhancing replayability and maintaining interest, the game needs the best ground model possible, because only here could the Germans realistically put any sort of spanner into the works. Only here can the two sides approach the sort of operational parity that makes for replayability, surprise and options.

That said, let's agree to disagree. If I go any further, someone might confiscate my WitE...

quote:

Now in 1943-45, the naval game is not as important, but the issues of air control over water are important (why didn't the Allies invade in Northern Italy in the summer of 43?).

War in the East is a monster operational game covering the largest land war in history. But War in the East does not really do justice to naval issues or many air issues because it was not critical to the land war and could be simplified. In the West, to do them justice like we think War in the East does justice to the land issues, we need more detailed systems (not at the WitP level, but more satisfying for the serious gamer). Logistics are critical in all areas, and we've learned a lot with our WitE experience, just like our Uncommon Valor game taught us some things we needed to learn before we did WitP. We think we can do better in WitW, and that will be necessary and helpful for all of WiE (including WitE 2.0).

No real argument except to ask where these more detailed naval models will create choice?

Or, put another way, it is true to say that Naval affairs were crucial to Allied success, but wrong (IMHO) to believe you have to simulate it to any real detail because on no level could the Germans challenge Allied naval might. If only one side has an interest in something, you may well be better off abstracting it.

quote:

We could try to do all of WitW 1940-45, in which case we'd say, we'll see you in 3-6 years if we haven't been forced to sell our houses and get a day job first.

An argument I fully, wholly and unreservedly appreciate, but which was not really articulated at a point before I started irritating you. My only mild come back would be that many of us do have day jobs and houses to pay for as well, hence our interest in decisions that triple the cost of something we desire. As I've said before, I am lucky enough to earn reasonably well and would pay (at least until you told me not to, how can I change your mind on this decision?) but this is an important calculation for many.

Tell me "we can't afford to do these games at any other scale now we've selected a scale, and have to do three games to maximise the revenue stream so we can afford to complete the project at all" and I'll buy them all, I'm happy to support those few people making games I want to play. Tell me "this is the best way to do it, what do you know?" whilst waving a big banner at me with the words "track record" written on it, and I may not buy, I believe my arguments are exampled enough, and sufficiently well articulated to warrant a less dismissive approach.

quote:

Some have argued we took on too much in doing WitE 41-45 all at once, but we made the decision to do it all at one time.

Do you think the decision worked?

I do.

quote:

With WitW, we see a clean break between the later years when the naval issues were simpler, and the earlier years where we need to create a new naval game.

As above. Germany was a land power with a modern air force. I don't really see you need an operational naval game of any great detail to create a game about her defeat because her options were strictly limited and relatively easy to simulate in the naval sphere.

quote:

Remember, there will be scenarios in both 43 and 44 where the Allies will have an opportunity to choose different invasion sites and build up to the invasion. To me this is still an operational game, and as you can see in the screenshot there are lots of hexes (please don't critique the map as it's an alpha map which will ultimately be painted and will go through several more rounds of data adjustments - we already have a list of changes to be made). It's not WitE, and there will be times when the Allies are bottled up in small parts of the map, but it's still an operational game (divisions, not corps or army units).

You're a Historian as well as a Wargame designer. In 43-45, the equation is simple. Only by bottling the Allies up can the Germans create any kind of operational campaign. When the Germans aren't bottling the Allies up, they will be retreating, plain and simple. They don't have the numbers to create a front line the length of central France so, to be fair, it'd be surprising if large parts of the map of France were actually used for anything other than retreating through.

That is my point, and what I suspect the Beta AARs will reveal to you. Before turn 70 (ish) and the retreat to the west wall, there are only two operational moments on Land. The Italian peninsula and the bottling up of the initial landing. If these are a collective 15-20 hexes long and mainly attritional frontal assaults, then the game has a problem (although admittedly, perhaps only one I'm bothered about). As the German player, giving me a new naval model and a new air model is scant comfort in the light of this, because I don't have any ships and only have a handful of planes piloted by average pilots who don't have the fuel to fly very often.

In a nutshell, this is my critique. I apologise if it's taken a few pages to get there.

quote:

The new air game will allow for the simulation of the strategic bombing campaign, and the east front holding box will add the dimension of having some control over east vs west front strategic choices. We think the new air game and the invasion possibilities will make for an interesting game that is within our capabilities to do in a reasonable time frame (not a bridge too far).

The new air game will certainly add something, although as I've said already, I don't see a myriad of options. I think the invasion possibilities are being overcooked since the germans couldn't actually prevent a landing wherever it took place lacking either Naval or air assets in the numbers required. In that sense, all the invasion rules really need to do is simulate lift capacity and logistics tonnage.

quote:

Then, we can try to fill in the gaps and construct a WiE. In order to do a WiE game, it needs to all be at the same scale, and we selected this scale a long time ago, but doing a War in Europe game all at once just isn't possible, and isn't the best way to refine all of the systems we'll need to have working. Just a reminder, we aren't EA working on the next Madden Football, with tremendous resources to bring to bear for a market of millions of consumers.

As above, I fully appreciate this sort of argument, and if I wasn't banned from purchasing, I'd buy the game as a nod to this reality.

To be clear, I didn't say your concerns were invalid, I said they would be _more_ valid if the focus of the game were on certain operations and exploring land combat within those operations. There are games that cover these areas at a lower ground and time scale and allow you to explore every historical operation that happened before Cobra. That may be your main focus, but it is not the focus of this game, any more than replaying Kursk in detail was the focus of War in the East.

What I wrote above may help clarify this. Joel's responses will probably explain it better. While you have divisions that can be broken down to regiments on the map, just as you did with WITE, as a player you are thinking much more like Roosevelt, Churchill and Eisenhower than like Patton or Montgomery. Your focus will rarely be on a small section of the front, but rather on the whole and on the combination of land and air and amphibious operations rather than just land combat.

I have no fleet, so amphibious operations are by definition beyond me, and I have a rapidly diminishing air force unable to gain parity, let along superiority, at any useful point, so land is all I've actually got. That land campaign is 15-20 hexes in total, half that for the first 50 turns, and once it gets any bigger, I'm going to have to run for the Reich, at least in France.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins Taking the Kursk analogy again, Prokhorovka in War in the East consists of a battle for a single hex. If you are interested in that particular battle, it's not really the best way to get into the details of it, despite the fact that the historical units with their historical and detailed TO&Es and Leaders are there. Despite that, playing out the weeks of 1943 during and after Kursk is a great experience that gives you a great sense of just how much of a blunder Kursk was and how it played into the Soviet position as well as the challenges that faced the Wehrmacht afterwards with the Soviets going over to the strategic offensive. That's what I'm getting at. Now if you add in a much more detailed and realistic air war as part of this and include amphibious operations and a coastline that covers Western Europe, the options get quite interesting and even though the game is not a game just about Normandy, you will get a good sense of how important Normandy (or the other landings) were and when and where you could or should land, what impact each landing has on the overall strategy for the Western Front, etc. It will be a heck of a good game and one that lets you see the big picture while keeping many of the interesting and historical details, just like War in the East.

What is different is that the small roped off bridgehead is all the fighting there should ever be in France. Kursk or no Kursk, I have options in WitE.

Or put another way, in 1942 in Russia, I can go for Moscow, Stalingrad, the Caucasus, Leningrad or something in between.

In WitW 1944, my five options are adjacent hexes, all with 3 Allied Divisions in them.

quote:

With respect, whilst a new air model and naval model will be nice, it was boots on the ground and operational art that liberated France and Italy. A naval model for anything bar a few months in the mediterranearn version of the game, and 2-3 turns in the 1940 game, will be largely pointless given the Kriegsmarine lacked the fuel, tonnage or numbers to trouble the RN, particularly in the period 43-45 covered by this first title.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins I think air and naval power had quite a lot to do with the Allies' successful landing in Normandy and air power had a large role to play in how the land combat proceeded after the landings.

Yes, but as the German player, once you have sortied your five e-boats (and had them all sunk for the loss of an Allied minesweeper and two fishing boats), and strafed Gold with your two Messerschmitts, you're about finished with your options in this regard.

Your only way to influence the outcome is then to do better on the ground, because that is the only place you have any assets capable of inflicting losses on the enemy. I have always though myself a competent operational wargamer, but I would struggle to outmanouvre anyone at these scales.

quote:

Likewise in the air, this first game is set in a period of Allied Air supremacy. Whatever the Allied player chooses to bomb in the air portion of the game, waves of P-51s and P-47s will attrit the Luftwaffe to nothing by turn 50 of the 1943 campaign, whatever the AXIS player attempts to do (unless he puts everything into national reserve).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins I think that given the start in 1943, the Axis player will still have options that can cause the Allies trouble, especially given that the outcome is not predetermined and player skill and strategies can vary. Let's assume that your prediction about the Axis being without airpower in 50 turns is correct, which I'm not sure it is if the Axis player plays well. That would still be a year in which the Axis has a lot of decisions to make and could seriously affect the Allied player's options as to where and when to land and how much to risk.

We agree to disagree. Even if the AXIS player has the game of his life overcoming fuel shortages, pilot shortages and enemy superiority in numbers to turn back the bombers over the Reich, the shorter ranges involved and the consequent extra waves of Allied planes that could join in would make any forward defence of the bridgehead area short, ruinous and a bit pointless for what was left of his force.

quote:

Which essentially brings us to the one section of the game where the Allies didn't have it all their own way, being unable to prevent a well organised fighting withdrawl from sicily, having to crawl a bloody crawl up Italy, and having to slug it out in the Bocage for three months before gaining space to manouvre.

Arguably, the only part of the WitW which gives the Germans any options (although these are all still slim) is the ground fighting, and it is precisely this part which is to be played out at a scale that will largely remove meaningful manouvre and decision making.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins Please see my responses above. I feel that you are not seeing the forest for the trees here and are talking yourself into minimizing the gameplay that will very much be there while focusing on your concerns.

Again, we shall just have to disagree. To my mind, the forest is the land combat, because only here did all protagonists take an active part. The trees are bells and whistles that really only apply to one side because the AXIS simply lacked the resources to compete. Put another way, in a game where Allied air power is supreme, not merely superior, do I need an air model that might allow me to select the squadrons to use, the weapons to load and the waypoints to fly in order to support a Cobra or a Goodwood, or do I just need a button that says "Use strategic bombers in ground support role" before designating a hex?

On the other side of the hill, given they can not influence the air battle over France (even if it is possible for a good AXIS player to do it in the face of an inferior Allied one over Germany - we shall see), and they can not influence the war at sea, what can a German player do when they are facing off across so few hexes? Wherever I attack, I will strike several divisions frontally, supported by several more in reserve. I either sit for 12 turns untill firepower attrits me to nothing or I run.

Only smaller scales can create options in circumstances like these, because I have more opportunity to find and mass against weak points or manouvre (in the dark) against his flanks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins In your next post you also express frustration that we are not listening. In fact, you've had several responses now from key people involved in the project. We are listening, even though we do not share the degree of your concern, largely because we know that this can and will work as a great game from past experience.

Responding and not listening are not mutually exclusive activities. The responses have been either we did a great game in the early nineties at this scale and we're confident we can do it again; we're going with 10 miles hexes and that's not going to change; you don't have to buy it if you don't want to, and you don't see the wood from the trees.

Nobody is listening. That's fine, because nobody is obliged to, but I sense mild condescension every time I visit the thread and it is that , rather than the blank denial there is any issue at all, that frustrates.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins The other point to make here is that creating the map for War in the West (and War in Europe) has been a nine month full-time project on its own so far, with much more work still to be done before it's ready for the release (probably another nine months to finish it). We do not agree that the map scale needs to change, but I want to also give you a sense of how much work it takes to even begin one of these games.

The eventual goal is to have these all fit together as a War in Europe. That's worth keeping in mind as well. A War in Europe at this scale will be an incredible game for any wargamer and we aim to keep it playable.

Only here, in these sorts of responses do I sense a straight answer. Behind closed doors, years ago, scales were decided, and a broad development course plotted. Too much has happened for any change in course to occur, whatever problems are raised. This I understand.

quote:

As Joel also pointed out to your later reply, the idea that we could do the entire West, 1940-1945 in one project is not realistic.

I'm not in a position to judge that, and your word is good enough for me on it. However, given the scale of what occurs in WitE, and the fact someone else managed it, I suppose i go back to the point I made to Joel about seeing what it is about the War in the West that really needs simulating, and going after it. How much of the extra work is a naval model where one side has little or no Navy, or an air model that doesn't directly affect the mode of combat where most people became casualties?

quote:

It would take five or six years to do that and the game would likely never release as Joel and Gary would not be able to support themselves long before the release date. The release plan allows us to explore some logical sections of the war in ways that make the additional features and the amount of work required in each area realistic for our development costs and time. I wish we could do it all and do it four times faster, but we cannot and this market will not support a larger development team.

A clinching argument, I have no issues with this statement, I only get frustrated when people tell me it's actually better to do it this way from all perspectives...

quote:

Finally, I'd (with the very greatest of respect and a gentle tone) point out that the man who gave us the cinematic magnificence that is Star Wars, also gave the world Howard the Duck. Past performance is not a guarantee of future....etc etc etc.

quote:

Using George Lucas on us is a bit of a low blow...

It was gently meant, but the serious point was that I really sense that Gary's name and 2by3s track record is used as a stick to suppress dissent. No one explains to me why my concerns are not really concerns, they just refer me to a track record and it'll be alright on the night. As a result, I illustrated that an artist can be a magician one day, and a bit of a turkey the next. No one is infallible, all arguments should be heard on their merits.

quote:

Well, firstly, the game is surely fundamentally broken if the Germans can beat the western Allies from an historical starting position in either 43 or 44. If this is a turn of phrase (one to note down for the publicity blurb, it was a nice soundbite ), and what you mean is "lose less bad" a la the victory models for WITP and WitE, then I would continue to argue that it is absolutely essential that the ground combat is modelled meaningfully because only here can the Germans affect the outcome.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins I was really speaking about this from the Allied perspective. The German player will have his hands full from the start trying to figure out a strategic defense without enough resources and playing bluff/counter-bluff with the Allied player until the first landing in Western Europe. As the Axis, you may be able to eliminate a landing if the Allied player gives you the opportunity, but you are fighting a strategic defense and deciding how best to achieve a victory within the game's terms. As with War in the East, this will be a very realistic game, not a fantasy game for either side, but within historical realism it will give you many options.

The argument about a numbers game that the Germans can't win applies equally to War in the East, yet players there enjoy playing in 1943 and 1944 as well. It's a great defensive challenge for the Axis. The Germans did lose this war and they will face the forces that liberated Europe, but how the war unfolds and whether they can achieve a performance better than their historical counterparts is the real question for their side. Again, since you are in the role of supreme commander, the question comes down more to if you didn't have Hitler and Himmler but instead had Kesselring and Model in charge of everything, would it have been different for the Allies?

But what will the German player be actually doing?

Movement of forces is problematic, since any recreation of the transportation plan will make movement in france of large units time consuming and not possible on operational timescales. Therefore, bluff/counter bluff would seem hard to achieve. Unless the Allied player has to set his landing objectives 6 months in advance, all he has to do is use his air superiority to recon AXIS units and then land where they aren't.

If not spending his time trying to shift an infantry divison across a shattered rail network in France, the AXIS player around turn 40 in the 43GC is either patiently soaking up Allied attacks in Italy, occasionally rotating units in and out (he won't be attacking), or wishing he has naval assets to exploit the new naval rules with.

Even the air model may hold scant requirement for his efforts, because if the Allied player is patiently implementing the transportation plan, and this plan is accurately modelled, how does the AXIS player react to myriads of attacks in a northern France in range of most, if not all, the Fighter assets the Allies hold?

In WitE, these numerical and strategic disadvantages are mitigated in 1944 by giving the AXIS player a couple of hundred counters to shuffle, move and fight with, and a hundred hexes of front over which to do it.

However, this thread has successfully established my concerns, and successfully established that nothing is going to change. I am content to wait until release to see who is right.

I genuinely, sincerely and deeply hope that you are. I genuinely, sincerely and deeply fear that I am.

A large part of your concern stems from the reality of World War II. We can't change that and we're not setting out to make a fictional game.

When I talk about "track record" I'm not trying to use it to wave away your concerns, I'm literally telling you that it might be worth taking a look at previous games from the same team at this scale in terms of seeing how it works in practice. I don't see this as condescending or ignoring you. It's an extremely relevant and valid point. If there had been no previous game made at this scale, we'd all be discussing theory with each other, but because a finished game exists you can look at it and see many of the questions of gameplay at this scale and how they were handled in practice. You may decide after that that it's not your cup of tea and that the gameplay at this scale does not work for you, but bringing up the existence of that previous game and that track record is not a way to silence you, it's IMHO a very useful data point.

Keep in mind the internet is a very good way to miscommunicate. I can tell you that neither I or Joel intended to dismiss, insult or condescend to you. There is no way, however, to communicate tone or intent. Words once written can be read entirely differently depending on the views of the reader. Just keep it in mind please.

I don't know that there's much more to say though. I understand your concerns, Joel does as well. We believe that the game in its final form is better than you are expecting it to be and as you said, I hope we're right.

Or put another way, in 1942 in Russia, I can go for Moscow, Stalingrad, the Caucasus, Leningrad or something in between.

In WitW 1944, my five options are adjacent hexes, all with 3 Allied Divisions in them.

Then what is the point of every realistic WWII game / simulation that is set to later war (1943 / 1944 / 1945)?

What can Japanese player do in 1944 / 1945 in WitP / WitP-AE?

Isn't he/she is same desperate situation German player would be in upcoming WitW in 1944 / 1945 or in current WitE in 1944 / 1945?

The answer is (and it was written here numerous times by Joel, Erik and us):

The only thing Axis players can and should hope is to be better than history - to try to beat the odds and keep the Soviets as far as possible east of Berlin, Western Allies west of Germany and Allies in the Pacific as far as possible from the Home islands!

BTW, I remember playing "World at War: D-Day - America Invades" some 15+ years ago. It was hard, it was frustrating, every move I made as German player I was hammered by Allies.. my units crumbled but I still tried to hold them back... it was fun!

Or put another way, in 1942 in Russia, I can go for Moscow, Stalingrad, the Caucasus, Leningrad or something in between.

In WitW 1944, my five options are adjacent hexes, all with 3 Allied Divisions in them.

Then what is the point of every realistic WWII game / simulation that is set to later war (1943 / 1944 / 1945)?

I don't want to go into this at length as I think peace is about to break out here.

Suffice to say, my point is not that the German player has no chance to win, but that he has no chance to win (and very little to actually do) at the scale being presented.

quote:

What can Japanese player do in 1944 / 1945 in WitP / WitP-AE?

Do better in 1942/43? That's not an option here with a 43 or 44 start. Additionally, WITP is a much more operational game. Would Japanese options be enhanced or lessoned if the hexes were 500 miles wide instead of 40/60?

quote:

Isn't he/she is same desperate situation German player would be in upcoming WitW in 1944 / 1945 or in current WitE in 1944 / 1945?

No, because the relative scales allow the Japanese player more flexibility and opportunity.

quote:

The answer is (and it was written here numerous times by Joel, Erik and us):

The only thing Axis players can and should hope is to be better than history - to try to beat the odds and keep the Soviets as far as possible east of Berlin, Western Allies west of Germany and Allies in the Pacific as far as possible from the Home islands!

BTW, I remember playing "World at War: D-Day - America Invades" some 15+ years ago. It was hard, it was frustrating, every move I made as German player I was hammered by Allies.. my units crumbled but I still tried to hold them back... it was fun!

I don't have a problem with the concept, merely the scale as I think it gives me very few ways to actually better history as the German player.

I am facing off on land against a few Allied hexes, all of which are stacked with strong combat units I can't hope to beat. Any attack is hopeless at these sorts of scales.